Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass Why isn't Jazz that popular? (DB forum thread)
- Thread starter gai113
- Start date
So this topic came to mind when I was reading a thread on the gear page board for guitarists.
The topic was "Any instrument you can't stand hearing?" Now many of the members of the gear page are of the Stevie Ray Vaughan is god church, and bless my assault rifle, but it seems like over half the responses were:
" I hate the sound of the saxophone." Quite a number of " horns in general" responses.
Eight pages of responses. Half or so hating the sound of the sax. Some were very specific about the type of sax they hated.
The topic was "Any instrument you can't stand hearing?" Now many of the members of the gear page are of the Stevie Ray Vaughan is god church, and bless my assault rifle, but it seems like over half the responses were:
" I hate the sound of the saxophone." Quite a number of " horns in general" responses.
Eight pages of responses. Half or so hating the sound of the sax. Some were very specific about the type of sax they hated.
I once made an observation that I have never heard Prince, as a represntative of the star frontman, with a sax player. For guitarist specifically horn players are in competetion for the soloist and lead fill spots in a band.
I once had an apartment lease with a clause that included the following phrase: "... no playing of saxophones or musical instruments ...".
These saxophone haters haven't heard an out of tune violin. Sends shivers down my spine just thinking about it.
The majority of jazz music is instrumental (i.e. has no vocalist). Without vocals conveying a storyline or any sort of word imagery, the average listener will have little to associate to. For this same reason instrumental music in general has had very few monster hits on the charts... especially since the 60's when Top 40 stations offered the best mix from all genres of music.
Also, note that even pop hits have only brief instrumental (sax/guitar) solos... 8-12 bars; about 20-30 seconds. Average listeners do not want 2-3 minutes of solos no matter who the artist is. There are very few exceptions (The Ventures).
Also, note that even pop hits have only brief instrumental (sax/guitar) solos... 8-12 bars; about 20-30 seconds. Average listeners do not want 2-3 minutes of solos no matter who the artist is. There are very few exceptions (The Ventures).
Jazz FM in the UK picks on Jazz artists who sing and has clear favourites - like Gregory Porter, Eliane Elias, Mario Biondi, Kurt Elling, Omar, Esperanza Spalding, Brand New Heavies, Incognito etc.
(As well as all the other stuff that is unequivocally NOT JAZZ!)
(As well as all the other stuff that is unequivocally NOT JAZZ!)
Me? Sonny Rollins took a sabbatical andid extensive practice on a bridge. The album he released afterwards was Invalid Link Removed
Some of what you describe is true, however, before the 1960s most of the 'big hits' were instrumental. Symphonic works, chamber works, string quartets, piano pieces, jazz big band pieces, small band pieces etc... on the whole had more stage time than operas, cantatas, music theatre etc.. and even operas / music theatre had a lot of instrumental passages. These were the hits, and the average listener, who also played piano, string or wind instrument, or sang (everyone did back then) got it just fine.
Recording/playback technology (people listening instead of playing) and marketing-business+education choices have changed the various scenes a lot since then. There has been a dumbing down of the whole field. Some things have gotten better, some things have gotten worse. Now we are in the age of "Tyranny of the Vocalist". It is not because people "don't get" instrumental music, but rather because it is easier to make quick money promoting a visual image of a sexy vocalist. Unattractive singers, no matter how good sounding, are left out of this scene, and instrumentalists, regardless of looks, struggle to get the same recognition as their predecessors.
Surf Music was the last style of pop music where instrumentals were accepted. 'Tequila', 'Wipe Out', 'Pipeline', stuff by Dick Dale and Sandy Nelson. Instrumental versions of hits originally with lyrics did well also... like most of The Ventures stuff.
But Jimi Hendrix said "And you'll never hear surf music again"... and we haven't!
Once The Beatles and other pop vocal groups took over seldom did instrumentals chart again ('Classical Gas', 'Love Is Blue', and others I can't think of are rarely heard anymore).
But Jimi Hendrix said "And you'll never hear surf music again"... and we haven't!
Once The Beatles and other pop vocal groups took over seldom did instrumentals chart again ('Classical Gas', 'Love Is Blue', and others I can't think of are rarely heard anymore).
I'm not sure about that with Funk you had instrumentals such as. Scorpio or Pick Up The Pieces. Chameleon and other Jazz Fusion songs crossed over to the Funk audience. When Disco was at its peak the disco insstumental break on the extended play singles was often longer then the lyrical portion.
There's plenty of instrumental stuff if you open your ears. Old fogeys need not bother listening.
You can't forget this one.
To say that instrumental music is dead smells more like someone is romanticizing the past. People know good music (generally) when they hear it, instrumental or otherwise.
In terms of commercial success, it's just simply easier to sell singers. Everybody's a sucker for a good singers.
You can't forget this one.
To say that instrumental music is dead smells more like someone is romanticizing the past. People know good music (generally) when they hear it, instrumental or otherwise.
In terms of commercial success, it's just simply easier to sell singers. Everybody's a sucker for a good singers.
To me, that's one of the reason I couldn't care less about most jazz. If an artist(or some of the fans) wants me to pay to see them, starting out by insulting large groups of people is not going to help their cause
.
Jazz is for cats that think? Nobody thinks anymore?
Sounds pretty condescending to me. There's plenty of music out there that is just as good as jazz that makes you think. To put jazz on a pedestal does nobody any favors. As mentioned before, there's a lot of ****** jazz too.
Sounds pretty condescending to me. There's plenty of music out there that is just as good as jazz that makes you think. To put jazz on a pedestal does nobody any favors. As mentioned before, there's a lot of ****** jazz too.
No matter the wording, it's true; it's the heart of the matter. There are people who are searching for something in music and there are people who go no further than the radio dial for it. Most people think of music as entertainment, which I honestly believe is fine. What I can't agree with is the aggressively anti-intellectual brush which art gets. "Jazz is for cats who think" is an undeniably true statement to my mind, but statements like these simply aren't allowed in the conversation. You know why? Anyone who is offended by such a phrase only hears, "you're dumb" and not, "come join us."
A lot of classical music is beyond what my ear can handle in terms of complexity. Do I call "elitist!" when a fan of this music tries to tell me what's up? No, they know better than I do.
